Back in July, former University of Nebraska women’s basketball player Charlie Rogers told police that three men broke into her home, held her down, carved horrific homophobic slurs into her body with knives, and tried to burn her home down with her in it because she’s a lesbian. The national response was incredible, as activists and support groups flocked to Nebraska to show their support as an ultimate stand against terrible, unacceptable homophobic acts and hate crimes such as this, and Rogers became the brave new face of survival and the universal need for equality.

Then yesterday happened.

But the Lincoln Police Department said Tuesday that “the physical evidence conflicted with Charlie Rogers’ version of events” and that “extensive investigation revealed numerous inconsistencies.”

To her credit, Rogers will plead not guilty and her attorney called these charges a “kick in the gut”. It should be noted that this is her second attorney, though, as the first one quit because “things have changed”.

According to the Lincoln Police Department complaint, Rogers, 33, provided information “she knew to be false” with the intent to “instigate an investigation of an alleged criminal matter.”

Rogers reported to police that she was lying on her bed when the alleged attackers held her down and carved “derogatory words” into her arms and abdomen and “a cross” in her chest. She told police she was then rolled onto her stomach where more cuts were made.

But according to a deposition from Lincoln police investigator Lynette Russell filed as part of the complaint, Rogers bedspread was “evenly placed on the bed and no apparent sign of a struggle.” A DNA lab test found no evidence of blood on the bedspread.

Russell also described a pair of white gloves found at the scene that Rogers had said were not hers.

“Ms. Rogers DNA profile was the major contributor to the DNA located on the inside of the gloves,” Russell said.

Furthermore, the deposition said, the FBI sent photos of Rogers’ cuts to a forensic pathologist, who believed the wounds to be self-inflicted.

“This opinion is based partially on the fact that the cuts appeared superficial and symmetrical, avoided sensitive areas of the body,…are accessible to the victim and follow the victim’s frame of reference for reading and writing,” the deposition said.

What do you even say to something like this? If she’s not lying, the police still have no clue who the attackers may have been, and then we still have this stigma that investigators kicked this poor woman while she was down. But if she’s a liar, not only has she completely taken advantage of the sympathy and good will of hundreds of thousands of people, but she also willingly accepted money from advocacy groups.

Either way, this is the perfect example of why I have a sign on the ceiling above my bed that reads: “Don’t watch the news today.”

This reminds me of the crazy girl that claimed almost the same thing right before the ’08 election. She was volunteering for McCain and said three black Obama supporters carved a “B” on her face. A backward “B”.

I don’t know what would be worse to lie and take advantage of advocacy groups, police, and other resources; or to have actually been mutilated, tortured, and victimized and have nobody believe you. From the information in the article it points to her lying, but what if she isn’t? It’s an absolute mind-fuck to think about.

Wasn’t there a news reporter back in the 80’s who claimed that he was jumped by Neo-Nazis who carved swastikas on his forehead? Then a few days later someone noticed that the swastikas were backwards and he admitted to doing it to himself? This type of weird shit happens from time to time and it makes you wonder how real, actual victims feel.

How can anyone entertain the possibility that she’s NOT lying? Why would her first lawyer quit? Why would the glove only have her DNA? Why was there no blood or sign of struggle? How could the cuts be symmetrical, superficial, and only follow her accessibility if she was held down? Why would the police bring charges unless they knew she was lying?

We should all be relieved this was an attention-seeking nutjob instead of a premeditated mutilation borne of bigotry. Both are terrible, sure, but can I go out on a limb and say the latter is worse?